Optimizing. Abstract: is standardd. procedures. altered to

Similar documents
Optimizing Standard Preparation

Maximizing Production While Minimizing Costs

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

A Comparison of Volatile Organic Compound Response When Using Nitrogen as a Purge Gas

A Single Calibration Method for Water AND Soil Samples Performing EPA Method 8260

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water and Soil by EPA Method 8260 with the Atomx Concentrator/Multimatrix Autosampler

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples by EPA Method 8260 with The Stratum PTC and SOLATek 72 Multi-Matrix Autosampler

US EPA Method 8260 with the Tekmar Atomx XYZ P&T System and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Validation of Volatile Organic Compound by USEPA. Method 8260C. Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions

Optimal VOC Method Parameters for the StratUm PTC Purge & Trap Concentrator

US EPA Method with the Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator, AQUATek LVA and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Validation of USEPA Method 8260C Using Teledyne Tekmar Atomx, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

Methanol Extraction of high level soil samples by USEPA Method 8260C

Analysis. Introduction: necessary. presented. Discussion: As part of be carried. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC, AQUATek 100 Autosampler, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds Using USEPA Method 8260 and the 4760 Purge and Trap and the 4100 Autosampler

Maximizing Sample Throughput In Purge And Trap Analysis

System and JUREK ANNE. Introduction: in an in purge and. trap sampling. Discussion: As part of. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

Validation of Environmental Water Methods on One System: Considerations for Sample Volume, Purge Parameters and Quality Control Parameters

Using Hydrogen as An Alternative Carrier Gas for US EPA 8260

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

Exploring US EPA Method 524 Purge and Trap Variables: Water Vapor Reduction and Minimizing Cycle Time

Optimal Conditions for USEPA Method 8260B Analysis using the EST Analytical Sampling system and the Shimadzu GCMS-QP2010s

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC and the New AQUATek 100 Autosampler

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, SUPERIOR SUPPORT. Presenter: Anne Jurek, Senior Applications Chemist, EST Analytical

Optimizing of Volatile Organic Compound Determination by Static Headspace Sampling

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

EPA TO-17 Volatile Organic Compounds

Method 8260C by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry using the Clarus SQ 8

2017 EPA Method Update Rule and EPA Method 624.1

Analysis of Low Level Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Anne Jurek

Improved Volatiles Analysis Using Static Headspace, the Agilent 5977B GC/MSD, and a High-efficiency Source

Helium conservation in volatile organic compound analysis using U.S. EPA Method 8260C

Optimization of 1,4-Dioxane and Ethanol Detection Using USEPA Method 8260 Application Note

Analytical Trap Comparison for USEPA Method 8260C

BIO-CHEM Laboratories, Inc. Work Order Sample Summary. CLIENT: Cascade Thornapple River Assoc. Project: Water Analysis Lab Order:

Ed George and Anaïs Viven Varian, Inc.

BIO-CHEM Laboratories, Inc. Work Order Sample Summary. CLIENT: CTRA Project: 6454 T Lab Order: A 6454 Aqueous 3/1/2013.

Application News AD Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by EPA Method with Headspace Trap GC-MS

Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in polluted air by an Agilent mini Thermal Desorber and an Agilent 5975T LTM GC/MS

Performance of a Next Generation Vial Autosampler for the Analysis of VOCs in Water Matrices

U.S. EPA VOLATILE ORGANICS METHOD USING PURGE AND TRAP GC/MS

AUTONOMOUS, REAL TIME DETECTION OF 58 VOCS IN THE PANAMA CANAL

Target Compound Results Summary

Measuring Environmental Volatile Organic Compounds by U.S. EPA Method 8260B with Headspace Trap GC/MS

Reduced VOC Sample Analysis Times Using a New Dual Purge-and-Trap System

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: Job Description: Transform Complete

CALA Directory of Laboratories

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); BADCT Limits for Volatile Organic Compounds

ANNE JUREK. Abstract: soils and are found. in can also with GC/MS. poster. in series. option for. There are problems. analytes. in methanol.

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

A Single Calibration for Waters and Soil Samples Performing EPA Method Anne Jurek Applications Chemist

Solid Phase Microextraction of Cyanogen Chloride and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water with Fast Analysis by GC-TOFMS

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Results relate only to the items tested and the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Page 1 of 5

Electronic Supplementary Material Experimentally Validated Mathematical Model of Analyte Uptake by Permeation Passive Samplers

McCAMPBELL ANALYTICAL INC Willow Pass Road Pittsburg CA

OREGON Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program ORELAP Fields of Accreditation ALS Environmental - Simi Valley

A Comparative Analysis of Fuel Oxygenates in Soil by Dynamic and Static Headspace Utilizing the HT3 TM Automatic Headspace Analyzer

The following report includes the data for the above referenced project for sample(s) received on 5/15/2017 at Air Toxics Ltd.

Analysis of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol Utilizing the Stratum PTC and Aquatek 70

METHOD 5021 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SOILS AND OTHER SOLID MATRICES USING EQUILIBRIUM HEADSPACE ANALYSIS

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Meeting NJ Low Level TO-15 Air Testing Method Requirements

Techniques for Optimizing the Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water Using Purge-and-Trap/GC/MS Application

Associates. Project No.: October 25, 2017

Copies: Dave Favero, RACER File

Evaluation of a New Analytical Trap for Gasoline Range Organics Analysis

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

Rapid Determination of TO-15 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Air

Volatile Organic Compounds in Water PBM

ANALYTICAL REPORT. Job Number: SDG Number: Job Description: Joint Base Cape Cod

Validation of New VPH GC/MS Method using Multi-Matrix Purge and Trap Sample Prep System

Building 280A and Building 450 Soil Sampling Results Richmond Field Station Site Berkeley Global Campus at Richmond Bay, Richmond, California

Application Note. Application Note 081 Innovative Cryogen-Free Ambient Air Monitoring in Compliance with US EPA Method TO-15. Abstract.

Date Issued: April 01, 2013 Expiration Date: June 30, 2013

Method 1624 Revision C Volatile Organic Compounds by Isotope Dilution GCMS

Volatile Organic Compounds in Every Day Food

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

R.E.A.C.T. Roxbury Environmental Action CoaliTion P.O. Box 244 Ledgewood, N.J Website:

Optimization of Method Parameters for the Evaluation of USEPA Method Using a Purge and Trap with GC/MS

Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Sampling Summary Table

317 Elm Street Milford, NH (603) Fax (603)

Laboratory Report Number(s) Lone Tree Road (Deep) 10/5/15, 10/19/15, 6/13/16. Address Sample Date(s) Analyses Requested

Headspace Technology for GC and GC/MS: Features, benefits & applications

Certificate of Accreditation

Enhanced Preconcentrator for the Analysis of Vapor Phase Volatile Organic Compounds

SUMMARY REPORT OF AIR MONITORING FOR LEED CERTIFICATION PHASE 2 SWANSFIELD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5610 CEDAR LANE COLUMBIA, MD PREPARED FOR:

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN WATER BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY/MASS SPECTROMETRY USING NITROGEN PURGE GAS

In-Tube Extraction Sample Preparation for Gas Chromatography

STONY HOLLOW LANDFILL, INC S. Gettysburg Ave. Dayton, OH (937) (937) Fax

Introducing New Functionalities in Liquid Stationary Phases in GC Columns for Confirming Organic Volatile Impurity Testing in Pharmaceutical Products.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS. Project: Mayflower, AR Pipeline Incident

Analysis of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals (USP<467>) with Shimadzu GC-2010 Plus and HS-10 Headspace Sampler

2. September 2015 Sub-Concrete Slab Soil Investigation

Appendix 2 Data Distributions for Contaminants in Water and Sediment Samples in Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 2010

The Determination of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals Using the Agilent G1888 Network Headspace Sampler Application

METHOD 5030C PURGE-AND-TRAP FOR AQUEOUS SAMPLES

Transcription:

Optimizing Standard Preparation ANNE JUREK Abstract: Standardd preparation can often be a time consuming, tedious process. The opportunity for human error or inconsistencies between individual preparation techniques can inhibit curve linearity and/or continuing calibration reproducibility. This application note will explore water matrix standard preparation techniques for USEPA Method 8260b. Discussion: There have been many advances in purge and trap analysis in the past ten years. These improvements vary from water management to limiting the amount of sample carryover. However, in creating a more efficient concentrator, the ability of the concentrator to tolerate large amounts of methanol has become an issue. Environmental laboratories are required to write and follow standard operating procedures in order to prove that sample handling and analysis is consistent. Chief among these standard operating procedures is standardd preparation. Since new purge and trap concentrators are no longer able to handle larger amounts methanol, the procedures for standard preparation may need to be altered to accommodate the concentrator s limitations. This application note will exploree how methanol affects curve linearity and compound response. Experimental: The sampling system used for this study was the EST Analytical Centurion WS autosampler and Encon Evolution concentrator. The experiments were run in water mode with a 5mL purge volume. Coupled to the sampling system were an Agilent 7890A GC and 5975 inert XL MS. The GC was configured with a Restek Rtx-624 20m x 0. 180mm x 1. 0µm column. Experimental parameters for both the purge and trap and GC/MS are listed in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.

Purge and Trap Concentrator EST Encon Evolution Trap Type Vocarb 3000 Valve Oven Temp. 130ºC Transfer Line Temp. 130ºC Trap Temp. 35ºC Moisture Reduction Trap (MoRT) Temp. Purge Time 39ºC 11 min. Purge Flow 40mL/min Dry Purge Temp. ambient Dry Purge Flow 40mL/min Dry Purge Time 1.0 min. Desorb Pressure Control On Desorb Pressuree 12psi Desorb Time 1.0 min. Desorb Temp. 260ºC Moisture Reduction Trap (MoRT) Bake Temp. 230ºC Bake Temp 260ºC Sparge Vessel Bake Temp. 110ºC Bake Time 8 Bake Flow 40mL/min Purge and Trap Auto-Sampler EST Centurion WS Sample Size 5mL Internal Standard Volume 5µL Table 1: Purge and Trap Parameters GC/MS Inlet Inlet Temp. Inlet Head Pressure Mode Split Ratio Column Oven Temp. Program Column Flow Rate Gas Total Flow Source Temp. Quad Temp. MS Transfer Line Temp. Scan Range Scans Solvent Delay Agilent 7890A/5975 inert XL Split/Splitless 200ºC 20.198 psi Split 40:1 Rtx-624 20m x 0.18mm I. D. 1µm film thickness 45ºC hold for 1 min., ramp 18ºC/min to 220ºC, hold for 0.3 min., 11.02 min. runtime 0.8mL/min Helium 35.8mL/min 230ºC 150ºC 180ºC m/z 35-265 3..12 scans/secc 0.7 min Table 2: GC/MS Parameters

The USEPA Method 8260b standards were purchased from Restek. The compound concentration was 2000µg/ml for all of the analytes with the exception of tert-butyl alcohol which was at 10,000µg/ml and p&m-xylene which was at 4000µg/ml. The percent methanol in the standards was calculated using the 200ppb calibration standard as a reference due to the fact that the maximum amount of methanol was in this standard. These calculations are displayed in Table 3. Standards were prepared at two different concentrations in order to minimize the percent methanol differences seen when preparing a curve. Refer to Table 4 for standard concentrations. in 200ppb Cal Standard IS Size Sample Standard and IS % in Purged Sample % Calculation / 0.2% 2µl/ml 15µl/ 0.3% 5µl/ml 30µl/ 0.6% /ml 55µl/ 1.1% 20µl/ml 105µl/ 2.1% /ml 255µl/ 5.1% Table 3: Percent l Calculation Standard Concentrations 0.5ppb to 10ppb cal. standards 20ppb to 200ppb cal. standards Standard Preparation 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 2.1% 5.1% 10ppm 4ppm 2ppm 400ppb 200ppm 100ppm 40ppm 10ppm 4ppm *% includes the added methanol from the internal standard Table 4: Stock Standard Preparation for Calibration s A nine point calibration curve was prepared and run for each percent methanol level. The calibration curve preparation is presented in Table 5. A range of 0. 5 to 200ppb was used to establish the curve and Agilent Chemstation software was employed to ascertain the linear calibration of the analytes. The analytes were also examined to establish compound response versus percent methanol in the standards; these results are listed in Table 6. The 5.1% methanol results were excluded from the results table due to the fact that all of the compounds needed to be linear regressed and still the results were not linear to 200ppb.

Calibration Preparation Calibration Standard Concentration 0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 2..1% 5.1% 0.5ppb 2.5µl 5µl 12.5µl 25µ µl 1 std. 400ppb std. 1ppb 5µl 50µ µl 2 std. 400ppb std. 2ppb 20µl 100µ µl std. 4ppb std. 5ppb 1 250µ µl std. 1.2 4ppb std. 10ppb 2 500µ µl 1ml std. 2.50ml 4ppb std. 20ppb 200ppm std. 20µl 100ppm std. 40ppm std. 100µ µl 50ppb 200ppm std. 100ppm std. 1 40ppm std. 250µ µl 1.2 100ppb 200ppm std. 100ppm std. 2 40ppm std. 500µ µl 1ml 2.50ml 200ppb 200ppm std. 100ppm std. 40ppm std. 1ml 2ml 5.00ml * All standards diluted in De-ionized water into a volumetricc flask. Table 5: Calibration e Preparation

0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 2.1% Compound Dichlorodifluoromethane Chloromethane Vinyl Chloride Bromomethane Chloroethane Trichlorofluoromethane diethyl ether 1,1,2-trichlorofluoroethane 1,1-Dichloroethene Acetone Iodomethane Carbon Disulfide Carbon Disulfide Methylene Chloride acetonitrilee Tert Butyl Alcohol MTBE cis-1,2-dichloroethene acrylonitrile Isopropylether Vinyl acetate 1,1-Dichloroethane Ethyl Tert Butyl Ether (ETBE) trans-1,2-dichloroethene ethyl acetate 2-Butanone 2,2-Dichloropropane Bromochloromethane propionitrile methacrylonitrile THF Chloroform methyl acrylate Dibromofluoromethane SUR 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2-Chloroethylvinylether Carbon Tetrachloride 1,1-Dichloropropene methyl acetate isobutyl alcohol Tert Amyl Methyl Ether Benzene 1,2-Dichloroethane propyl acetate Trichloroethene 1,2-Dichloropropane methyl methacrylate Dibromomethane Bromodichloromethane 2-chloroethanol 2-nitropropane 6.10 9.88 7.23 8.64 8.20 2.88 3.68 5.71 5.42 11.10 13.31 10.55 4.56 8.72 8.65 9.01 3.75 5.43 12.01 7.23 8.71 5.05 ) 2.60 7.80 10.66 10.01 3.83 5.99 12.27 12.14 7.66 7.61 8.24 5.67 2.66 4.87 8.34 2.47 4.59 10.38 2.89 3.84 3.23 9.17 6.06 3.01 5.77 6.12 4.28 7.67 6.00 0.597 6.76 0.626 4.89 0.578 3.08 0.313 4.26 0.353 5.83 0.837 4.18 0.416 3.81 0.495 4.09 0.449 3.52 0.192 7.07 0.427 9.38 1.248 5.69 0.774 8.22 0.500 7.83 0.062 9.02 0.066 14.90 1.623 1.72 0.499 4.86 0.224 10.17 1.774 4.14 1.283 4.24 1.012 3.18 1.813 2.28 0.594 3.21 0.104 9.96 1.039 10.48 0.859 2.54 0.355 5.10 0.096 14.39 0.567 13.52 0.227 11.59 1.055 13.75 0.628 5.41 0.537 13.58 0.926 2.48 0.409 3.74 0.707 13.76 0.818 2.43 1.892 2.75 0.031 0.998* 1.771 2.74 2.330 2.52 0.826 2.28 0.630 4.39 0.378 2.40 0.354 4.57 0.302 3.50 0.213 2.70 0.281 1.98 0.154 7.48 0.144 11.49 0.440 4.77 0.368 0.456 4.10 0.426 0.428 3.26 0.408 0.233 12..02 0.247 0.267 3.66 0.265 0.636 4.57 0.625 0.323 5.24 0.331 0.379 5.05 0.383 0.347 3.48 0.350 0.127 14..52 0.165 0.370 10..79 0.365 0.934 8.69 0.919 0.577 6.58 0.597 0.386 6.04 0.387 0.035 13..64 0.041 0.030 12..82 0.045 1.218 2.81 1.266 0.388 3.19 0.384 0.176 9.56 0.197 1.293 4.49 1.344 1.000 2.81 1.060 0.738 2.73 0.764 1.310 3.49 1.340 0.440 2.82 0.442 0.077 11..82 0.090 0.790 8.71 0.907 0.635 2.84 0.629 0.257 2.09 0.262 0.067 11..56 0.075 0.439 12..52 0.484 0.171 6.94 0.195 0.831 7.37 0.812 0.480 5.15 0.518 0.434 7.47 0.418 0.704 3.27 0.704 0.319 4.08 0.330 0.521 13..79 0.526 0.617 2.22 0.618 1.424 2.49 1.515 0.014 0.998* 0.021 1.291 3.54 1.334 1.716 2.33 1.751 0.620 1.89 0.636 0.451 3.82 0.513 0.265 2.82 0.282 0.247 3.08 0.261 0.223 3.34 0.243 0.157 3.96 0.168 0.200 4.62 0.217 0.113 7.09 0.118 0.104 10..58 0.117 11.00 0.197 11.74 0.245 7.99 0.239 11.75 0.145 7.74 0.160 5.36 0.378 5.42 0.194 8.96 0.225 4.61 0.204 11.53 0.092 7.56 0.211 6.70 0.512 4.71 0.348 9.75 0.237 7.54 0.026 13.76 0.022 3.56 0.745 9.17 0.236 9.54 0.110 4.86 0.791 9.25 0.616 4.85 0.447 2.68 0.805 7.60 0.275 8.21 0.050 13.64 0.535 9.12 0.354 5.30 0.161 11.03 0.040 10.01 0.280 8.92 0.110 9.59 0.497 4.49 0.294 14.23 0.272 3.47 0.430 7.86 0.195 10.18 0.320 4.69 0.382 2.73 0.911 8.15 0.009 3.57 0.817 1.99 1.066 4.85 0.394 5.97 0.316 3.04 0.178 2.97 0.164 6.18 0.150 3.82 0.105 4.05 0.135 13.25 0.078 7.52 0.064 11.54 0..255 9.76 0..289 7.55 0..266 0.995* 0..143 8.13 0..166 6.62 0..389 2.84 0..202 6.74 0..227 6.84 0..215 0.995* 0..402 15.04 0..202 12.70 0..556 7.39 0..361 12.90 0..246 9.08 0..031 0.998* 0..038 2.99 0..764 10.65 0..246 6.28 0..116 4.89 0..797 7.18 0..576 5.70 0..460 2.45 0..818 7.15 0..284 11.27 0..053 0.998* 1..053 5.36 0..324 9.51 0..172 6.37 0..042 8.07 0..284 13.30 0..116 9.83 0..504 5.29 0..313 14.00 0..277 5.34 0..433 4.36 0..208 10.58 0..328 6.95 0..392 3.35 0..915 14.64 0..010 3.85 0..825 4.92 1..109 9.43 0..414 4.19 0..309 6.65 0..181 3.8 0..161 6.42 0..153 5.31 0..108 3.93 0..130 8.51 0..074 11.15 0..062

0.2% 0.3% 0.6% 1.1% 2.1% Compound cis-1,3-dichloropropene 4-methyl-2-pentanone Toluene-d8 SUR Toluene ethyl methacrylate trans-1,3-dichloropropene 1,1,2-Trichloroethane Tetrachloroethene 1,3-Dichloropropane isopropyl acetate butyl acetate Dibromochloromethane 2-Hexanone 1,2-Dibromoethane Chlorobenzene 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Ethylbenzene Xylene (m+ +p) Styrene Xylene (o) n-amyl acetate Bromoformm Isopropylbenzene cis-1,4-dichloro-2-butene BFB SUR Bromobenzene 1,2,3-Trichloropropane 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane n-propylbenzene trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene 2-Chlorotoluene 4-Chlorotoluene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene tert-butylbenzene pentachloroethane sec-butylbenzene 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene nitrobenzene 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Isopropyltoluene 1,2,-Dichlorobenzene n-butylbenzene 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Naphthalene Hexachlorobutadiene 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene Average *Linear Regression Value 3.13 6.49 3.41 3.80 4.01 4.61 3.29 6.73 2.93 6.50 4.48 6.27 5.04 5.30 5.66 3.89 3.75 4.02 5.03 4.32 3.70 8.78 5.01 8.18 10.69 5.97 3.57 6.44 3.05 6.87 4.22 4.54 2.70 2.80 9.48 3.27 4.20 8.91 5.52 8.12 3.75 4.87 4.31 e 8.86 4.50 8.98 5.07 7.84 6.15 0.581 2.53 0.432 5.00 1.292 3.33 0.899 2.70 0.542 5.75 0.565 6.16 0.322 2.88 0.357 6.97 0.569 2.09 0.097 1.69 0.279 4.18 0.358 8.32 0.307 8.80 0.331 2.72 1.118 1.78 0.376 6.68 1.964 2.54 3.096 3.23 1.242 3.59 1.566 3.38 0.850 2.24 0.273 11.04 1.945 3.8 0.189 12.37 1.051 4.73 1.379 3.43 1.183 4.66 0.909 3.72 4.183 2.02 0.327 5.76 0.788 2.12 0.824 1.79 2.832 2.95 2.430 2.63 0.360 8.07 0.732 3.76 2.917 2.97 0.077 11.32 1.558 2.32 1.620 5.59 3.001 4.36 1.510 1.845 2.643 3.83 0.204 7.93 0.945 3.02 3.167 4.73 0.334 11.38 0.903 2.55 0.907 5.40 0.406 4.66 0.419 0.300 5.24 0.353 0.895 4.63 0.942 0.639 2.54 0.679 0.384 4.36 0.421 0.383 5.76 0.404 0.232 2.40 0.246 0.231 8.96 0.243 0.408 2.91 0.430 0.071 10..40 0.077 0.198 2.92 0.221 0.249 9.40 0.265 0.220 7.11 0.263 0.240 2.49 0.258 0.738 3.79 0.744 0.250 6.69 0.248 1.322 2.38 1.323 1.027 2.56 1.027 0.829 4.48 0.818 1.035 2.02 1.036 0.567 3.75 0.588 0.186 13..72 0.184 1.292 4.19 1.279 0.126 12..50 0.127 0.667 7.01 0.631 0.880 5.06 0.846 0.785 4.03 0.779 0.617 3.38 0.603 2.707 2.54 2.551 0.221 6.54 0.225 0.514 3.51 0.487 0.535 2.77 0.509 1.805 3.07 1.717 1.558 2.96 1.475 0.285 6.74 0.272 0.469 2.42 0.449 1.865 2.76 1.778 0.029 14..98 0.031 1.018 2.89 0.947 1.072 9.00 1.019 1.915 4.46 1.818 0.992 3.38 0.930 1.722 4.10 1.618 0.135 7.02 0.135 0.633 8.22 0.608 2.097 2.22 2.056 0.237 5.40 0.211 0.600 4.15 0.570 0.619 5.60 0.619 Table 6: Data Summary 5.07 0.262 4.83 0.213 2.47 0.623 2.97 0.435 5.69 0.261 6.96 0.249 3.74 0.158 9.42 0.160 1.98 0.278 8.93 0.049 6.21 0.137 11.76 0.163 5.05 0.153 2.92 0.163 6.39 0.555 7.26 0.178 2.55 0.963 3.02 0.756 4.47 0.592 2.96 0.757 6.81 0.408 14.76 0.129 3.16 0.933 0.999* 0.081 10.72 0.528 4.64 0.664 6.86 0.581 4.5 0.462 2.99 2.033 6.55 0.158 2.57 0.386 3.38 0.406 3.34 1.352 3.02 1.176 0.997* 0.199 2.98 0.352 2.92 1.395 0.997* 0.016 5.94 0.764 11.54 0.818 3.89 1.437 4.16 0.739 6.08 1.257 10.46 0.096 4.12 0.458 5.48 1.528 7.45 0.161 4.21 0.428 6.50 0.422 6.75 0..253 7.31 0..213 5.23 0..611 4.96 0..426 5.99 0..251 8.28 0..244 5.36 0..154 4.67 0..143 3.97 0..274 6.58 0..046 4.98 0..130 13.39 0..157 10.98 0..156 4.73 0..161 8.40 0..539 9.29 0..169 4.32 0..931 4.88 0..734 5.25 0..579 3.52 0..722 7.01 0..367 14.61 0..117 4.22 0..899 0.997* 0..076 14.71 0..509 9.88 0..657 4.59 0..556 3.39 0..446 4.21 1..940 5.10 0..143 5.77 0..374 10.01 0..402 3.99 1..305 4.67 1..130 9.08 0..216 7.23 0..339 4.56 1..349 14.74 0..015 13.10 0..771 7.56 0..768 5.63 1..375 7.02 0..719 7.05 1..225 7.87 0..091 12.11 0..465 5.75 1..499 14.66 0..170 8.93 0..437 7.52 0..427

Figure 1: Overlay of Bromoform Response Ion 1733 (Blue plott 0.2%, Red plot 2.1% ) ) Figure 2: Overlay of 50ppb Standard Chromatograms with 0.2% (Blue) and 2.1% (Red)

Conclusion: The Encon Evolution proved to be an excellent system for handling large amounts of methanol. Compound responses passed for all of the SPCC compounds up to 2.1% methanol, but the Bromoform responsee decreased dramatically with the increased percent of methanol in the standards. linearity was consistent through the study up to 2.1% methanol; however at 5.1% methanol linearity could not be achieved. Overall, 5.1% methanol in the standards was too much for the system to handle and the recommendationn would be to introduce less than 2% methanol for better results. It should be noted that the lower the methanol volume in the calibration standardss produced the optimum compound responses. (For a standard preparation illustration with 0.2% methanol refer to Appendix A.)

Appendix A Standard and Preparation Illustration for 0.2% To Make an 8260 Standard at 200ppm Diluted in P& &T Amount 160µl 80µ µl Restek Part # 30265 30633 30042 30489 30465 30287 30073 30006 Standard 2-Cleve Cal Mix #1 502.2 Cal Mix #1 Acetates Cal Oxy 1,4-Dioxane Surr. Mix VOA Cal Mix #1 Concentration 2.0-10.0mg/ml 2.5mg/ml 5.0mg/ml Final Vol. Use 2ml volumetric flask and dilute standards to in purge and trap methanol To Make a 10x Dilution of the 8260 Standard (From 200ppm to ) Diluted in P&T of 200ppm standard diluted to in purge and trap methanol To Make an 8260 Internal Standard at 50ppm Diluted in P&T Amount 1 Restek Part # 30074 Standard 8260IS Concentration Final Vol. 5.0ml Use volumetric flask and dilute standards to 5.0ml in purge and trap methanol Note: Restek Standards used for this Standard Preparation example. Standard choices and concentrations are dependent on Customer needs. To Prepare an 8260 Diluted in De-ionized/UV Treated Water Concentration 0. 5ppb 1ppb 2ppb 5ppb 10ppb 20ppb 50ppb 100ppb 200ppb Standard 200ppm 200ppm 200ppm 200ppm Standard Amount 2.5µl 5µl Final Vol. Water Standards Fill 40ml Vial with final standard leavingg no headspace in the vial. Soil Standards Add of final standardd to a 40ml vial.